Laserfiche WebLink
8. Rezoning these properties entirely to Shoreline Residential would not constitute a <br /> down-zoning as these properties were previously zoned Residential with similar <br /> provisions governing their use. <br /> All members voted"aye". Motion carried. <br /> APPLICANT: City of Pequot Lakes <br /> Applicant requests to rezone from Commercial and Forestry to Forest Management <br /> and Rural Residential. Charles Peterson, property owner, Parcel No.: <br /> 290271100AAA009. Gary Peterson,property owner,Parcel No.: <br /> 290271100000009. Thomas Peterson, property owner,Parcel No.: <br /> 290271100D00009. <br /> Charles Peterson was in attendance. Mr. Marohn explained the Staff Report. Mr. <br /> Peterson stated that when the County rezoned his property the south line of the <br /> Commercial extended all the way to the south lot line. The portion of Commercial along <br /> County Road 168 was 300 feet deep,this map indicates it will be 200 feet. He has a <br /> storage building on this parcel and the 200 feet of Commercial does not include the <br /> building. He would like it to be 300 feet to include the storage building. <br /> Mr. Marohn explained that it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan to extend <br /> commercial further south. He also stated that the storage building can continue in Forest <br /> Management. It is a legal non-conforming use in either Forest Management or <br /> Commercial. The Future Land Use Map indicates these parcels at Rural Residential and <br /> Forest Preservation. <br /> Mayor Malecha explained the rezoning that took place with Sibley Township. <br /> The Planning Commission discussed the remainder of the proposed Commercial zone <br /> located below Parcel "D", which is approximately 100 feet X 350 feet. The minimum lot <br /> size in a Commercial zone is 20,000 square feet. <br /> A motion was made by Dean Williams, seconded by Scott Pederson,to approve rezoning <br /> these parcels as recommended in the Staff Report, based on the following Findings of <br /> Fact: <br /> 1. The rezoning to Rural Residential and Forest Management is consistent with the <br /> City's Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, which designates the <br /> smaller parcels as Rural Residential and the larger tract as Forest Preservation. <br /> 2. Should the larger property be rezoned to Forest Management, rezoning the two <br /> smaller properties to Rural Residential would be inconsistent with the <br /> compatibility requirements for that zoning district, which states that the Rural <br /> Residential zone may not be completely surrounded by the Forest Management <br /> and Agriculture zones. <br /> Planning Commission Minutes 5 <br /> December 14, 2006 <br />